Gay Patriot Header Image

Obama, not fixing his Debt Bomb

Last week, President Obama released his new budget proposal, which in February he said would be the end of austerity. First let’s ask, what is meant by “austerity”? As a policy, was it ever tried?

As discussed by myself and others, “austerity” means tax hikes (not spending cuts) in practice. Lefties hurl the word “austerity” to demonize the idea of spending cuts. But few of the countries which left-liberals accused of cruel austerity in the last few years cut their overall government spending levels; the majority continued to increase spending. So spending cuts can’t explain those countries’ poor economic results. What can? Well, most of them raised taxes.

Clearly, we should end (or reverse) the tax hikes. That would be a great “end of austerity”. But Obama’s meaning is that we should undertake spending increases; which, for reasons touched on below, probably mean deficit increases.

Before going into Obama’s proposal, let’s review the current state of the U.S. budget. (more…)

Did the U.S. seek trouble in Ukraine?

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 2:02 pm - March 9, 2014.
Filed under: National Security,Obama Incompetence

To be clear: Putin is a tyrant, and I condemn him. I condemn Russia’s military actions against Ukraine, and I support the people of Ukraine in being free and determining their own government. (Should it still be called the Ukraine, in English? Some say no.)

Having said that: As human beings, Obama and Kerry tend to be hypocrites who overplay their hands. And they strike me as surprised that Putin has offered military resistance to their wishes in the Ukraine crisis. Which raises the question: What are their real wishes? Did U.S. agencies organize the most recent Ukrainian revolution?

If so, the U.S. security apparatus would have motive in plenty. Russia supplies Europe’s oil and gas via pipelines that go through Ukraine. Putting those pipelines under control of an anti-Putin, anti-Russia government would be payback for a lot of Russian moves, not limited to Russia’s harboring of Edward Snowden (of the NSA surveillance revelations).

As to evidence of U.S. meddling: first, the Voice of Russia claims to have revelations about it, including a story that Ukrainian protestors had been murdered by their new government as a ‘false flag’ operation to foment the revolution. But Voice of Russia isn’t good enough. After all, the KGB (Putin’s first career) specialized in putting out disinformation. Is there other evidence?

In February, the Financial Times leaked a phone conversation allegedly between US assistant secretary of state Victoria Nuland and the US envoy to Ukraine (Geoffrey Pyatt) wherein they explicitly plan who will be in Ukraine’s next government. The ZH link provides audio; the Nuland voice famously says “F**k the EU”, near the end.

That’s still not hard evidence, because Nuland/Pyatt might have been fantasizing or delusional about the extent of their influence. Overall, although motive abounds for the U.S. to have brought about the Ukraine revolution, the evidence for it is still weak.

Regardless of the answer here, my feelings are mixed. It would be nifty if President Obama really cared about promoting freedom in Ukraine and/or U.S. interests, especially after he failed to support them in Iran’s aborted Green revolution of 2009-10. On the other hand, I’m against murdering protestors; and the U.S. shouldn’t be making trouble on Russia’s doorstep without a very compelling U.S. security interest. It would be just like Obama to overplay his hand with something like that. Containing Putin is one thing; aggressive (and losing) games of brinksmanship with Putin are another.

Speaking of the U.S. possibly losing the game: Russia is keeping up the the financial threats I mentioned a few days ago. Russia’s foreign minister, Lavrov, affirms that sanctions would “hit the U.S. like a boomerang”. And yes, China is siding with Russia against Obama’s threat of sanctions (so China may join Russia in dumping U.S. Treasury bonds). FWIW, India also seems to lean toward Russia. It is not at all clear that, in a diplomatic contest between Obama and Putin, Putin would be the one who ends up isolated.

Obama in Fantasyland, summed up

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 10:37 pm - March 8, 2014.
Filed under: National Security,Obama Incompetence,War On Terror

From Stephen F. Hayes:

For five years, the Obama administration has chosen to see the world as they wish it to be, not as it is. In this fantasy world, the attack in Fort Hood is “workplace violence.” The Christmas Day bomber is an “isolated extremist.” The attempted bombing in Times Square is a “one-off” attack. The attacks in Benghazi are a “spontaneous” reaction to a YouTube video. Al Qaeda is on the run. Bashar al-Assad is a “reformer.” The Iranian regime can be sweet-talked out of its nuclear weapons program. And Vladimir Putin is a new, post-Cold War Russian leader.

In the real world, it was a pen pal of the late jihadist Anwar al-Awlaki who opened fire on soldiers at Fort Hood. The Christmas bomber was dispatched from Yemen, where he was instructed by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. The Times Square bomber was trained and financed by the Pakistani Taliban. Benghazi was a deliberate attack launched by well-known terrorist groups. Al Qaeda is amassing territory and increasing its profile. Assad is a brutal dictator, responsible for the deaths of more than 100,000 Syrians. The Iranian regime is firmly entrenched as the world’s foremost state sponsor of terror and remains determined to lead a nuclear state. And in Russia we face a Cold War throwback willing to use force to expand Russian influence.

And Vladimir Putin, it turns out, is who we thought he was. Unfortunately, so is Barack Obama.

The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations

Posted by V the K at 7:53 am - March 7, 2014.
Filed under: Obama Incompetence

Remember when a politician who miffed the spelling of a word was derided as an imbecile unfit for public office and a national joke? Well, standards aren’t what they used to be.

“When Aretha [Franklin] first told us what R-S-P-E-C-T meant to her, she had no idea it would become a rallying cry for African Americans, and women, and then everyone who felt marginalized because of what they looked like or who they loved. They wanted some respect,” Obama said.

Update: Media bias? What media bias?

CNN was quick to cover for Obama’s misspelling. Ashley Banfield said Obama just “wanted to throw us all, see if we were actually all paying attention.”

Russia threatens financial retaliation if Obama proceeds with sanctions

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 3:25 pm - March 4, 2014.
Filed under: Economy,National Security,Obama Incompetence

I’m amazed to see financial threats being made this openly. Like real military threats, real financial threats are usually made via backchannels. But, then again, President Obama has threatened Russia openly with sanctions.

MOSCOW, March 4 (RIA Novosti) – An adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin said Tuesday that authorities would issue general advice to dump US government bonds in the event of Russian companies and individuals being targeted by sanctions over events in Ukraine.

Sergei Glazyev said the United States would be the first to suffer in the event of any sanctions regime…

Glazyev noted that Russia is a creditor to the United States.

“We hold a decent amount of treasury bonds – more than $200 billion – and if the United States dares to freeze accounts of Russian businesses and citizens, we can no longer view America as a reliable partner,” he said. “We will encourage everybody to dump US Treasury bonds, get rid of dollars as an unreliable currency and leave the US market.”

Is it just bluster? As recently as last year, the answer would be yes. But China holds approximately $1 trillion in U.S. Treasury bonds; and if Russia ‘goes there’, China will not want to be left behind.

And for several years now, China has been working with its partners (including Russia, Japan, Brazil, the UK, France and Germany) to set up facilities for trade & finance that would enable them, collectively and at long last, to be independent of the U.S. dollar. Even before this crisis, some experts were predicting that 2014-15 would see those efforts bear fruit.

Leave it to John F.-n Kerry and Barack Obama to be just stupid enough to push Russia and China further along a road that they are already well-and-gladly on.

Russia’s threat also comes via its Foreign Ministry: (more…)

Obama in Fantasyland

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 9:13 pm - March 3, 2014.
Filed under: National Security,Obama Incompetence

V picked up on the Obama Fantasy aspect of the Ukraine crisis earlier; consider this part 2.

President Obama thinks he can hit Russia with economic sanctions but, as they did last summer in the Syria crisis, Britain is siding with Russia for practical purposes.

Of course the Telegraph article tries to make it sound nice, in the lede:

Britain is preparing to rule out trade sanctions against Russia amid fears that the Ukraine crisis could derail the global economic recovery.

Further down is the truth:

…the capacity of European leaders to react decisively has been hampered by the dependence of much of the European Union on Russian oil and gas…

On Monday, Mr Obama…said he had warned Russia that if it continued on its “current trajectory”, it would face “a whole series” of economic and diplomatic steps that would leave it isolated.

However, there was little sign that the increased pressure was doing anything to deter Mr Putin…

It is not a foregone conclusion that Russia is the one facing isolation. This is a measure of how much American influence has been lost on Obama’s watch.

WaPo Is Partially Correct

Posted by V the K at 12:43 pm - March 3, 2014.
Filed under: Obama Incompetence

The Reliably Left-Wing Washington Post*says that Obama’s foreign policy is “based on fantasy.”

FOR FIVE YEARS, President Obama has led a foreign policy based more on how he thinks the world should operate than on reality. It was a world in which “the tide of war is receding” and the United States could, without much risk, radically reduce the size of its armed forces. Other leaders, in this vision, would behave rationally and in the interest of their people and the world. Invasions, brute force, great-power games and shifting alliances — these were things of the past.

They are correct to note that his foreign policy is based on fantasy and executed by middle school girls who think they can taught their adversaries into submission by telling them their actions make them uncool and will lead the cool kids to reject them.

They fail to note that his economic, health care, energy, and national security policies are also based on fantasy. e.g The fantasy that socialism works if it is administered correctly.

*Now a property of Jeff Bezos of Amazon; how convenient to own the newspaper that shapes the opinions of the politicians who regulate your business… and your competition.

UPDATE (from Jeff – ILC): More links.

  • The Reliably Left-Wing New Republic says Mitt Romney Was Right About Russia. Gee. Admitting that you were wrong about someone, long after your admission could make a difference, is…nice?? or?
  • Obama plans financial attacks on Russia. I believe that the extent to which this is real (not just bluster) is the extent to which it will backfire. For years, China and Russia have been building alliances and facilities to kick the U.S. dollar off of its international pedestal. Any success that Obama has in squeezing Russia economically will push them along that road.

The President Deals with a Crisis

Posted by V the K at 11:28 pm - February 28, 2014.
Filed under: Obama Incompetence

SCENE: The White House Situation Room

THE PLAYERS: The POTUS, the V-POTUS, the SecState, NSA (National Security Advisor Susan Rice), the Ambassador to the Ukraine, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Press Secretary.)

POTUS: All right people, what’s up with this Ukraine thing? And make it snappy, I’ve got a Tee Time.

Chairman JCS: Mr. President, Russia is flying troops into Crimea to secure the strategic seaport at Svastopol. The Treaty of Budapest obligates the US to come to the aid of Ukraine in the event of Russian invasion. If we signal weakness on this, the Chinese may see this as a go-ahead to retake Taiwan…

SecState: Okay, enough with the warmongering jibber-jabber. I’ll have you know I served in Vietnam. In my opinion, Mr. President, Ukraine is just a distraction from the real strategic threat.

POTUS: Which is what?

SecState: Global Warming, of course.

POTUS: Right, of course. (Checks watch) Mr Ambassador, what can you tell us about the situation?

Ambassador to the Ukraine: (Shrugs) I don’t know. I only got this job because I donated 400 large to the campaign. I never even heard of the place. For real, up until my confirmation I thought U-Crane was like some crane rental company or something. Like -Haul… but with Cranes, you know what I am saying.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs: Mr. President, if I may…

POTUS: Shut up, warmonger. Susan, what’s your take on this.

NSA Susan Rice: Well… have you guys ever seen that video where the cats are in Russian uniforms marching to Laibach?

POTUS: What does that have to do with anything?

NSA Susan Rice: I just wondered if we could blame it for what’s happening in Ukraine or whatever.

POTUS: Good thought. Let’s bookmark that. Jay, where’s the media on this.

Press Secretary: It’s getting serious. MSNBC even broke their coverage of Bridgegate to talk about it.

POTUS: Well, what did they say?

Press Secretary: Rachel Maddow is blaming the Koch Brothers.

POTUS: Finally, some good news. Joe, you’ve been quiet. What do you think we need to do?

VPOTUS: I think we can just ride this one out and count on the media to cover our asses as usual. Meanwhile, throw some red meat to the base to keep them distracted. I hear an interracial gay couple in Alabama found a cross on their lawn.

POTUS: Was it burning?

VPOTUS: No, it actually turned out to be a real estate sign that fell over, but Dan Savage has already sent about 70 furious tweets about it. If we point, the media will gin up something, and before you know, Ukraine will be all “What difference does it make” and “phony scandal.”

POTUS: (Smiling) Joe, that’s why you are the brains of this outfit. All right, I’m out. Later, gators.

Yes, it’s easier not to think about politics

My title (point) will strike most people as obvious. But some “obvious” things remain theoretical until they hit you. Then they feel almost like a new thought.

I’ve been on a break from “the news” for over 2 months now, and I feel relaxed. Life is easier this way. What Obama and the Democrats have been up to, by way of destroying most of what has been healthy and good about America, is so sad. And out of my control, so it’s easier to think about other things.

This may lead to a small insight into the “low-information voters” who support Obama / Democrats. Politics deals with life-and-death questions. A budget or regulatory change can force any number of people into changing their lives. ‘Not thinking about it’ is probably easier for most people, including those voters.

The average Democrat voter (that I’ve encountered) has a feeling that the Democrats seem to like abortion privileges, gays and blacks; and she likes those things, too; and she doesn’t think any further about politics, because she figures that whatever else the Democrats are up to, she would probably also like. Never mind that in reality, the Democrats are the stalwarts of that Big Government – Big Banking nexus which siphons off her earning power year after year, and whose nature is essentially fascist (anti-freedom).

What’s depressing for libertarian-conservatives is that the Republicans are only a little better. The GOP are better – as in, usually they are a bit less insane. But the GOP Establishment are also captives of (or intimidated by) the same Big Government – Big Banking nexus that uses/runs the Left. The GOP and Democrat establishments unite in seeking to destroy the Tea Party – who are the main people interested in a smaller government, to restore the prosperity and freedom of Americans.

Putin Is Running Rings Around Obama in Statecraft

Posted by V the K at 9:11 pm - February 9, 2014.
Filed under: Obama Incompetence

Even reliably left-leaning commentator Mr. Bob Costas has to admit that Putin is the far superior statesman than President Obama:

“Putin has been a fixture on the international stage for almost 15 years as either president or prime minister,” the sportscaster stated. “That’s far longer than any other leader among the world’s most influential nations. Just in the past year, Putin brokered a deal to allow Syria to avoid a U.S. military strike by giving up its chemical weapons,” Costas continued in a voiceover, “and helped bring Iran to the negotiating table over its nuclear intentions.”

“And he has repeatedly showcased his confidence to take on the West, particularly the United States,” the NBC announcer continued. “Offering asylum to national security agency leaker Edward Snowden, enticing Ukraine to back out of a deal to join the European Union, and passing laws viewed as repressive to members of the gay community and their supporters.”

Add to this the most recent humiliation handed to the hapless Obama Administration by the Obama Regime, leaking audio from a telephone conversation in which Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland disrespects the European Union in a juvenile and potty-mouthed way.

Add to this a comical series of appointments of crony ambassadors:

  • An Ambassador to Argentina who neither speaks Spanish nor has ever been to Argentina (but donated a great deal of money to Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign.
  • An Ambassador to Norway who admits to knowing nothing about Norway (but donated a great deal of money to Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign)
  • An Ambassador to Hungary who is completely ignorant of the US interests in that country (but donated a great deal of money to Mr. Obama’s campaign)

If Mr. Obama had set as a policy goal the diminishment of American influence in the global community and the empowerment of America’s enemies, he could not have succeeded better than he has. And the Democrat Party is poised to award Obama’s top foreign policy official with its nomination for President of the United States.

So let me get this right:

The administration—whose latest foray into unobstructed, unlegislated, we’ve-got-this, go-it-aloneism was the fabulously ‘effed up roll-out of HealthCare.gov—is going to make 2014 the year of the Executive Branch takes on the world without the messiness of involving the People’s Branch of the federal government?

This’ll be something to see…

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from The Ranch)

Obama figures out it is easier to pass blame onto to Republicans (than it is to work with them)

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:18 am - January 24, 2014.
Filed under: Blame Republicans first,Obama Incompetence

If President Obama listened to a certain someone who spoke to Jay Leno about changing Washington nigh on five years ago, he might spend more time talking to them than blaming some in the conservative media.

As readers who remember my blog postings will surely recall, in March 2009, that certain someone said:

And one of the things that I’m trying to break is a pattern in Washington where everybody is always looking for somebody else to blame. And I think Geithner is doing an outstanding job. I think that we have a big mess on our hands. It’s not going to be solved immediately, but it is going to get solved. And the key thing is for everybody just to stay focused on doing the job instead of trying to figure out who you can pass blame on to.

But, early this morning, Yahoo! was leading with an article reporting:

President Barack Obama is blaming his rocky relationship with Republicans in Congress on Rush Limbaugh, and the constant stream of bad press he receives from Fox News.

In the New Yorker follow-up interview to the magazine’s in-depth portrait of the President, Obama is described as being “particularly touchy” when discussing the notion that his inability to compromise with Republicans prevents him from passing more legislation.

Interesting that the folks at Yahoo! Celebrity headline this as Obama calling out Rush Limbaugh et al., as if he is being bold and daring and standing up to bullies. No, the problem isn’t bullies on the right, but inaction from the White House.  When was the last time Mr. Obama invited any Republican leaders for a round of golf or to to a “beer summit” at the White House?

But what they really should be asking is why Mr. Obama doesn’t do as other presidents have done and invite his partisan adversaries to the White House or otherwise attempt to hash out their differences.

Funny that our legacy media aren’t asking why Obama is always looking for someone else to blame.

And You Thought the “If You Like Your Plan…” Lie Was Bad

2012: Barack Obama declares: “Al Qaeda is on the path to defeat.” He also said.

“I ended the war in Iraq, as I promised. We are transitioning out of Afghanistan. We have gone after the terrorists who actually attacked us 9/11 and decimated al Qaeda.”

“We said that we would go after al Qaeda, and they are on the run and bin Laden is dead.”

“That’s why, working with Joe Biden and our national security team, we’ve been able to decimate al Qaeda.”

“Thanks to sacrifice and service of our brave men and women in uniform, the war in Iraq is over, the war in Afghanistan is winding down, al Qaeda has been decimated, Osama bin Laden is dead.”

“Today, al Qaeda is on its heels and Osama bin Laden is no more.”

2014: Al Qaeda controls more territory than ever in Middle East.

But, by all means, mainstream media, keep obsessing over that bridge thing.

How Not to Behave at a Funeral

Imagine if you will, George W. Bush, attending a state funeral for a much respected world leader. And, during the funeral procession, he flirts with an attractive blond and takes grinning selfies in full view of the cameras.

Obama_Mandela_Selfie_Moment

And before any of Obama’s Army of Sycophants shrieks “faux outrage,” I’m not actually outraged by him acting like a complete boob at a state funeral. I am somewhat outraged by his eager and ready handshake for a Communist dictator with the blood of thousands on his hands, who keeps millions of his people oppressed and impoverished. Or, maybe that’s not a big deal to the Food Stamp, IRS-Abusing, “I’m really good at killing people” President.

Is Obama dumb, or just his base?

Is President Obama ignorant of how the job market works, or does he cynically exploit the ignorance of his left-wing, “low information” voter base?

If economics has two consistent findings, they are:

  1. Rent control messes up a city’s rental market, driving rents *up* (and rental quality down) over time.
  2. Raising the minimum wage kills low-end jobs, the ones held by young and/or poor people.

You can prove (2) to yourself with a simple thought-experiment. Imagine we raised the federal minimum wage from its present $7.25/hour to, say, $25. Would McDonald’s or any other restaurant, large or small, be able to stay in business?

They might, if they adopt Applebee’s new “Waiter Terminator”.

The E La Carte Presto tablets – powered by Intel – will allow patrons to pay from their seats while also adding food and beverages to their existing orders…

The Presto tablets, which were developed at MIT, have been “ruggedized” to deal with the spills and rowdy children…

DineEquity said it might consider introducing the tablets at its IHOP restaurant chain as well. The company joins many others in the industry that have begun incorporating technology into the customer experience.

When government forces wages up, it forces businesses to kill jobs: either by the business dying, or by its replacing workers with technology (a.k.a. capital). The restaurant industry has technology waiting in the wings.

As if to defy that reality, last week Obama tweeted his base the following total falsehood:

Hence, my question. (more…)

The disaster that is Obamacare (ongoing)

My earlier post may have to become a series. As before, you may know the following already from news or other blogs, but it deserves to be acknowledged here at Gay Patriot.

UPDATES (late morning):

Obama hammered in polls

This is everywhere; may as well be here. Per a CNN poll,

Only four out of 10 Americans believe President Barack Obama can manage the federal government effectively…

…53% of Americans now believe that Obama is not honest and trustworthy…

Fifty-six percent say he is not a person they admire, and an equal number say he does not agree with them on important issues. Fifty-six percent also say he does not inspire confidence, and 53% don’t view him as a strong and decisive leader. All of those figures are all-time records for Obama in CNN polling.

Ouch. But will voters remember, by the 2014 midterm elections?

Recovery for the One Percent: Record inequality

To “celebrate” Dow 16000 and S&P 1800, both of which the stock market just hit intra-day, I’ve gathered a few links on rising economic inequality in the U.S. A few remarks first, to set context.

As a capitalist, I have no problem with inequality – when it comes about for the right reasons, that is, when sovereign consumers have awarded it by their actions in free markets. The problem is that, under President Obama, we have inequality for the wrong reasons.

Obama puts government in control of more and more of the economy, and he has the Federal Reserve bailing out the biggest players on Wall Street (as well as the government) and goosing the financial markets ever higher. That doesn’t come for free.

Whenever someone is bailed out, somebody else was “bailed in”; somebody else lost wealth (or purchasing power). Obama’s policies stealth-transfer it from the wages, pensions, savings and balance sheets of productive people to those who happen either to (1) receive government spending, or/and (2) own financial assets (stocks, bonds, etc.).

Many of those are productive people; but many are not and, in any event, everyone should have to earn wealth the real way, by pleasing their employer or their customers in the market. None merit bailouts. No one deserves government-orchestrated wealth transfers (stealthy or otherwise). No one.

I want small government, natural rights under Rule of Law, sound money and free markets because they are both moral and populist. They form the only moral social system (the only system that lets people be free and doesn’t steal from them, or enslave them). And, as a consequence of being moral, they form the only practical system where masses of deserving poor and middle-class people can and will get ahead.

The Big Lie of Leftism is that leftism somehow stands for the People, or the little guy. It doesn’t. As we see today with President Obama’s policies, producing a result of record inequality – for all the wrong reasons.

OK, now for some data. First, via Marc Faber and Zero Hedge, here is household net worth by wealth percentile:

household net worth by wealth percentile

You can see that, in the last six years, the share of wealth held by the bottom 75% has plunged from 12.7% to barely 10%. (more…)

Leftie psychology update

Enough lefties understand that President Obama is drowning in scandals of his own creation that comedy shows can begin to talk about it:

But other lefties remain mired in denial:

Oprah…[said] “There’s a level of disrespect for the office that occurs. And that occurs in some cases and maybe even many cases because he’s African American. There’s no question about that and it’s the kind of thing nobody ever says but everybody’s thinking it.”

Oprah ignores the fact that Americans elected Obama twice; the fact that everybody on the Left has been ‘saying it’ for years; and the fact that Democrats, to this day, show the greatest of disrespect to President Bush. Never mind the question of whether Obama has been dragging down the office with his unpresidential behavior.

Via HotAir.

The disaster that is Obamacare

You could get all this like I did, by a quick scan of the HotAir headlines. But then you wouldn’t have a convenient discussion thread for it, on your favorite gay blog ;-)

That last link shows you this creepy pro-Obamacare ad:

Obamacare 'stupid slut' ad

Why creepy? Look – Birth control is cheap (quite a bit cheaper than Obamacare). The ad shows a young lady who believes that it’s hers only because she over-pays for her Obamacare insurance. That suggests she’s dumb. The ad also shows her gloating about having sex with a random guy. That suggests she’s a slut (as is the guy; my use of the word is gender-neutral). And so we arrive at Obamacare’s ideal demographic: Stupid sluts who think it’s “hot” to have a life of needless dependency on Big Government. That should tell you something about Obamacare.

UPDATE: Ron Fournier’s irony is note-perfect: “…We Lied to Obama. We told him he could be popular. What we meant to say was he could be popular … if he told the truth.”